Comparison of dosimetric characteristics of 120-leaf and 80-leaf multi-leaf collimators in a Varian linear accelerator for a 6-MV photon beam

Dosimetric effects of multileaf collimator leaf width on intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

The authors evaluated the effects of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf width (2.5 vs. 5 mm) on dosimetric parameters and delivery efficiencies of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck (H&N) cancers.

METHODS

The authors employed two types of mock phantoms: large-sized head and neck (LH&N) and small-sized C-shape (C-shape) phantoms. Step-and-shoot IMRT (S&S_IMRT) and VMAT treatment plans were designed with 2.5- and 5.0-mm MLC for both C-shape and LH&N phantoms. Their dosimetric characteristics were compared in terms of the conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) for the planning target volume (PTV), the dose to organs at risk (OARs), and the dose-spillage volume. To analyze the effects of the field and arc numbers, 9-field IMRT (9F-IMRT) and 13-field IMRT (13F-IMRT) plans were established for S&S_IMRT. For VMAT, single arc (VMAT1) and double arc (VMAT2) plans were established. For all plans, dosimetric verification was performed using the phantom to examine the relationship between dosimetric errors and the two leaf widths. Delivery efficiency of the two MLCs was compared in terms of beam delivery times, monitor units (MUs) per fraction, and the number of segments for each plan.

RESULTS

2.5-mm MLC showed better dosimetric characteristics in S&S_IMRT and VMAT for C-shape, providing better CI for PTV and lower spinal cord dose and high and intermediate dose-spillage volume as compared with the 5-mm MLC (p < 0.05). However, no significant dosimetric benefits were provided by the 2.5-mm MLC for LH&N (p > 0.05). Further, beam delivery efficiency was not observed to be significantly associated with leaf width for either C-shape or LH&N. However, MUs per fraction were significantly reduced for the 2.5-mm MLC for the LH&N. In dosimetric error analysis, absolute dose evaluations had errors of less than 3%, while the Gamma passing rate was greater than 95% according to the 3%/3 mm criteria. There were no significant differences in dosimetric error between the 2.5- and 5-mm MLCs.

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with MLC of 5-mm leaf widths, MLC with finer leaf width (2.5-mm) can provide better dosimetric outcomes in IMRT for C-shape. However, the MLC leaf width may only have minor effects on dosimetric characteristics in IMRT for LH&N. The results of the present study will serve as a useful assessment standard when assigning or introducing equipment for the treatment of H&N cancers.

Suggesting a new design for multileaf collimator leaves based on Monte Carlo simulation of two commercial systems

Due to intensive use of multileaf collimators (MLCs) in clinics, finding an optimum design for the leaves becomes essential. There are several studies which deal with comparison of MLC systems, but there is no article with a focus on offering an optimum design using accurate methods like Monte Carlo. In this study, we describe some characteristics of MLC systems including the leaf tip transmission, beam hardening, leakage radiation and penumbra width for Varian and Elekta 80-leaf MLCs using MCNP4C code. The complex geometry of leaves in these two common MLC systems was simulated. It was assumed that all of the MLC systems were mounted on a Varian accelerator and with a similar thickness as Varian's and the same distance from the source. Considering the obtained results from Varian and Elekta leaf designs, an optimum design was suggested combining the advantages of three common MLC systems and the simulation results of this proposed one were compared with the Varian and the Elekta. The leakage from suggested design is 29.7% and 31.5% of the Varian and Elekta MLCs. In addition, other calculated parameters of the proposed MLC leaf design were better than those two commercial ones. Although it shows a wider penumbra in comparison with Varian and Elekta MLCs, taking into account the curved motion path of the leaves, providing a double focusing design will solve the problem. The suggested leaf design is a combination of advantages from three common vendors (Varian, Elekta and Siemens) which can show better results than each one. Using the results of this theoretical study may bring about superior practical outcomes.